| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/04/2003 07:25:00 PM · #126 |
| I understand both sides of this coin. This is an objective site where we are all suppose to be having fun and learning from each other. I think that too many people are losing site of that and treatign this as if there were money on the table. It is great for everyone to have that competitive fire but lets not lose site of what we are here to do, which is sumbit our photos for fun and learning. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 07:31:11 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by dgaldeen:
I understand both sides of this coin. This is an objective site where we are all suppose to be having fun and learning from each other. I think that too many people are losing site of that and treatign this as if there were money on the table. It is great for everyone to have that competitive fire but lets not lose site of what we are here to do, which is sumbit our photos for fun and learning. |
You don't take your fun seriously? I always have fun with my photography even when I am seriously exploring better ways to improve my photos. It is primarily just a hobby for me and if it wasn't any fun I certainly wouldn't be putting so much time and effort into it. The very fact that we are exploring this issue of editing does not, in and of itself, imply that we have lost site of the 'fun' aspect. Many of us just enjoy debating different issues in hopes of learning more or finding ways to improve an already fantastic site.
T
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 07:34:45 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by dgaldeen:
I understand both sides of this coin. This is an objective site where we are all suppose to be having fun and learning from each other. I think that too many people are losing site of that and treatign this as if there were money on the table. It is great for everyone to have that competitive fire but lets not lose site of what we are here to do, which is sumbit our photos for fun and learning. |
I totally agree with this statement.
I also want to say if allowing editing becomes a standard around here I think there should be a few levels of entrees also. A level for the beginner, the novice and then the advanced. You would be a beginner till you have acheived repeatedly top 10 placement in that level, a novice again till you acheive repeatedly top 10 placement in that level and then the advanced would be where the editing is premitted. All three levels would have the same challenges each week just that the editing would different and there would be three seperate scoring sections. It would help those who don't know how to do different types of editing and allow them to feel free to enter in the lower two levels while learning how to do these things. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 07:35:52 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by dwoolridge:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
I think it's a bad idea... then u will run into voters who don't like it because it's too edited...
|
And you run into voters anyway who don't like it because it contains a flag, a flower, a pet, a pound of flesh, a small jpeg artifact, dust, a border, or any number of things.
Of course, I agree it's a problematic issue, as it seems you fear voters will spend too much time focusing on the edits, rather than the final photograph. I think this can be partly addressed through the interface by simply having a "view original" link and having the original only available as a thumbnail.
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Do you read rough drafts of novels before you read the novel? |
Uhh, this is a really bad analogy. |
It's a perfect analogy... who wants to see the in process unfinished work of anything? A book, an opera, or a photograph... same difference... Ansel Adams didn't show his unfinished prints.. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 07:42:32 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by casualguy:
What if we submitted the ORIGINAL IMAGE (reduced, but with valid exif data) along with EDITED IMAGE for comparison while voting. We, the voters would then be able to judge whether the editing is acceptable (in our own personal opinions). If I view an entry that I deem to be excessively edited I would vote accordingly. While my intrepretation of 'excessive' may vary from yours, so what!... The current way of choosing ones favorite photo is purely subjective now, what's the difference? |
I think it's a bad idea... then u will run into voters who don't like it because it's too edited... |
From the degree of editing that your (John) original post was refering to, you would probably have nothing to worry about. Yes, the people who feel 'zero' editing should be allowed would grade you, me, us, as they see fit... but, if the amount of editing we performed falls within the majority of the voters acceptable limits we would be successful.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 07:50:27 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
It's a perfect analogy... who wants to see the in process unfinished work of anything? A book, an opera, or a photograph... same difference... Ansel Adams didn't show his unfinished prints.. |
I repeat in nearly all forms of critical analysis -- literary, musical, visual fine arts -- knowing what the "drafts" were like is essential to understanding the piece itself. I see no reason why this would not be the same for photography.
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 07:50:53 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by casualguy:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by casualguy:
What if we submitted the ORIGINAL IMAGE (reduced, but with valid exif data) along with EDITED IMAGE for comparison while voting. We, the voters would then be able to judge whether the editing is acceptable (in our own personal opinions). If I view an entry that I deem to be excessively edited I would vote accordingly. While my intrepretation of 'excessive' may vary from yours, so what!... The current way of choosing ones favorite photo is purely subjective now, what's the difference? |
If the editing is done properly, you can't tell that any editing has been done at all... do u think people would just automatically assume that a great photo is 'too great' to have been natural?
I think it's a bad idea... then u will run into voters who don't like it because it's too edited... |
From the degree of editing that your (John) original post was refering to, you would probably have nothing to worry about. Yes, the people who feel 'zero' editing should be allowed would grade you, me, us, as they see fit... but, if the amount of editing we performed falls within the majority of the voters acceptable limits we would be successful. |
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 07:51:46 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by Jak:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
It's a perfect analogy... who wants to see the in process unfinished work of anything? A book, an opera, or a photograph... same difference... Ansel Adams didn't show his unfinished prints.. |
I repeat in nearly all forms of critical analysis -- literary, musical, visual fine arts -- knowing what the "drafts" were like is essential to understanding the piece itself. I see no reason why this would not be the same for photography. |
I think i must be the only person that doesn't care how a great photo is achieved. I don't care what the negative looks like.. i just wanna see the print :)
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 07:55:21 PM · #134 |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 08:05:13 PM · #135 |
I don't really care what editing techniches, such as dodging and burning, are used in a photo because I usually assume some enhancements or corrections were applied to improve a photo. If I find out that a photo which contains major alterations, particularily in regards to the placement of primary elements or when compositing is used in order to create an intirely new scene, with the intent to decieve the viwer, than that bothers me. There is nothing wrong with altering the photo in this way in creating digital art and I see no good reason why the artist shouldn't be up front about it.
T
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 08:42:29 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by Jak:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
It's a perfect analogy... who wants to see the in process unfinished work of anything? A book, an opera, or a photograph... same difference... Ansel Adams didn't show his unfinished prints.. |
I repeat in nearly all forms of critical analysis -- literary, musical, visual fine arts -- knowing what the "drafts" were like is essential to understanding the piece itself. I see no reason why this would not be the same for photography. |
ok, the first thing that pops into my head here is my musical past. now i realize this can be argued from both sides, but for the sake of dpc, i see us as like, say a choral group or a band that goes to contest. you dissect and learn your piece to perfection using the very extent of your and your teacher's capabilities---the goal being to win the superior rating. you then go out on stage, in front of the judges and present the perfection of the finished piece--not the work in progress! we at dpc are in front of judges for the actual challenge. once the challenge is over, however, we then open ourselves up for the critical analysis with the critiques, and that is where we explain our processes--and maybe even a how-to tutorial--this stuff is made available for further analysis--not during the challege--during the judging, but *after* the contest is done.
Message edited by author 2003-06-05 00:30:14. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 09:46:24 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by casualguy:
(I made a similar suggestion earlier in this discussion)
What if we submitted the ORIGINAL IMAGE (reduced, but with valid exif data) along with EDITED IMAGE for comparison while voting. We, the voters would then be able to judge whether the editing is acceptable (in our own personal opinions). If I view an entry that I deem to be excessively edited I would vote accordingly. While my intrepretation of 'excessive' may vary from yours, so what!... The current way of choosing ones favorite photo is purely subjective now, what's the difference? |
I think it's a bad idea... then u will run into voters who don't like it because it's too edited...
Do you read rough drafts of novels before you read the novel? |
Agreed. You don't see the original photograph when viewing a piece in a gallery either. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 09:49:59 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by KarenB:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
Originally posted by casualguy:
(I made a similar suggestion earlier in this discussion)
What if we submitted the ORIGINAL IMAGE (reduced, but with valid exif data) along with EDITED IMAGE for comparison while voting. We, the voters would then be able to judge whether the editing is acceptable (in our own personal opinions). If I view an entry that I deem to be excessively edited I would vote accordingly. While my intrepretation of 'excessive' may vary from yours, so what!... The current way of choosing ones favorite photo is purely subjective now, what's the difference? |
I think it's a bad idea... then u will run into voters who don't like it because it's too edited...
Do you read rough drafts of novels before you read the novel? |
Agreed. You don't see the original photograph when viewing a piece in a gallery either. |
Agreed. Good night! |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 09:54:15 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by Jak:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
It's a perfect analogy... who wants to see the in process unfinished work of anything? A book, an opera, or a photograph... same difference... Ansel Adams didn't show his unfinished prints.. |
I repeat in nearly all forms of critical analysis -- literary, musical, visual fine arts -- knowing what the "drafts" were like is essential to understanding the piece itself. I see no reason why this would not be the same for photography. |
Jak: I would agree with you to some degree if it were a learning tool.. but I don't believe this has a place during a challenge. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 09:57:12 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
It's a perfect analogy... who wants to see the in process unfinished work of anything? A book, an opera, or a photograph... same difference... Ansel Adams didn't show his unfinished prints.. |
He wouldn't show them to you, but tell me you really wouldn't want to see them (or those of your other favorite artist)? I'm lucky enough to have once gotten to visit his house/darkroom (after he died, unfortunately), and found it very interesting.
That doesn't mean I want to see all steps of every image though, which might be more your point ... |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 09:59:35 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
It's a perfect analogy... who wants to see the in process unfinished work of anything? A book, an opera, or a photograph... same difference... Ansel Adams didn't show his unfinished prints.. |
He wouldn't show them to you, but tell me you really wouldn't want to see them (or those of your other favorite artist)? I'm lucky enough to have once gotten to visit his house/darkroom (after he died, unfortunately), and found it very interesting.
That doesn't mean I want to see all steps of every image though, which might be more your point ... |
My point is that when i'm voting on photos here, I don't want or need to see the 'original image'. There is no use in that to me at all. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 10:10:39 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
My point is that when i'm voting on photos here, I don't want or need to see the 'original image'. There is no use in that to me at all. |
That's what I thought, and pretty much agree with. Every once in a while, I do want to see an original; since we're not allowed to see the additional comments, seeing the original would at least give me a chance to "reverse engineer" what was done.
And I think your editing rules are eminently reasonable and in accordance with the spirit of DPC. I still worry it would be a nightmare to administer, and would fill the forums with even more ranting. I would love to be wrong about that ....
And I'm still not sure how the rule would apply to an image like I posted before, which doesn't "look like a photograph" to me, but was achieved through legal means by the old rules. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 10:17:58 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by karmat:
If I do ANYTHING, even resize, to a pic, the EXIF data goes *poof* |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
...
*poof*®,
Note: *poof* is a registered trademark ® of Drew Ungvarsky (drewmedia).
-Terry |
|
I, karmat, of somewhat sound mind and too much body, hereby officially and formally request the forgiveness of one Mr. Drew Ungvarsky upon learning that I have unknowingly and irreverently used his creative, ingenius, and wonderful trademark within my comment. I humbly, earnestly, honestly, and simply beg that pardon be granted, as I will now change my comment.
If I do ANYTHING, even resize, to a pic, the EXIF data goes *shhlluurrrrppp*
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 10:25:42 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by karmat:
I, karmat, of somewhat sound mind and too much body, hereby officially and formally request the forgiveness of one Mr. Drew Ungvarsky upon learning that I have unknowingly and irreverently used his creative, ingenius, and wonderful trademark within my comment. I humbly, earnestly, honestly, and simply beg that pardon be granted, as I will now change my comment.
If I do ANYTHING, even resize, to a pic, the EXIF data goes *shhlluurrrrppp* |
Hahahaha .... sorry, I couldn't resist copying that other post I came across recently, where I pointed out to Terry that he should have used the superscript TM instead of the circle-R; but since I got jumped on for that, I figured I'd just stick with his original post.
Now, the Slurpee(r) people may get on your case for infringement of "trade dress" .... (it's a legal/marketing term) |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 10:31:30 PM · #145 |
I do believe there may be a small difference. I added an "h" to mine, so now it is a karmatmark. If the Slurpee people wanted an h in theirs, they should have put it there!
(Disclaimor -- I have absolutely no idea what GeneralE is talking about, do you???)
|
|
|
|
06/04/2003 10:50:36 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by timj351:
I understand what you are saying about only working in a particular color channel but that wouldn't help that much because I need to see the results relative to all the other channels. I've explored this pretty extensively and could not find a way to simple desaturate red, for example, with the spounge tool while you are still working on the full color image. My workaround is to create actions for desaturating the seaprate channels and then I use the lasso tool to select a small area and then hit the appropriate action to desaturate whatever color I want. It does the job but it is a little clunky.
T |
I just tried, you can do this in the version of photoshop I have.
Select the (de)saturation tool. Go to the channel palette. Click for example, the red channel (where it says 'red') The image will turn monochrome. Only the red channel is highlighted. The small eye beside the channels only appears beside the red channel. Now click where the 'eye' would be, beside the RGB channel. All of the eyes will re-appear. The image will return to full colour. Only the red channel will be highlighted in the text list. Your edits now only change the red channel, but you can see all of the others.
Hope that helps. You might need to play with it a bit, because you probably really want to work in the blue and green channels simultaneously and so on - you can do this by shift-clicking to work on two channels at once, much in the same way you can work on multiple layers, while viewing others.
Message edited by author 2003-06-04 22:55:26. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 10:59:34 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by karmat:
(Disclaimor -- I have absolutely no idea what GeneralE is talking about, do you???) |
I'm sorry, I'm trying to have some fun with something I'm supposed to be better at than photography.
Trade dress is a "look and feel" issue, where a claim is made for a trademark on not only the specific image or logo, but for an overall design line. For example, I don't think Del Monte would let another cannery come out with bright green labels, with a picture of the food, and the name in big red letters. It was the crux if the issue over which Apple sued (and lost to) Microsoft over their copying the GUI (which I think Apple got from Xerox) for Windows.
It's also what you get at the Goodwill store .... |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:01:24 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
... to work in the blue and green channels simultaneously and so on - you can do this by shift-clicking to work on two channels at once, much in the same way you can work on multiple layers, while viewing others. |
Thanks -- a really useful new trick! |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:03:35 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Gordon:
... to work in the blue and green channels simultaneously and so on - you can do this by shift-clicking to work on two channels at once, much in the same way you can work on multiple layers, while viewing others. |
Thanks -- a really useful new trick! |
Personally I think people who are using photoshop are at a real disadvantage over the better designed interfaces in other image editors.
Photoshop seems to be like the Perl programming language. Hundreds of really unobvious ways to do anything. |
|
|
|
06/04/2003 11:43:30 PM · #150 |
This has got to be the biggest rant ever. It seems that every 1 month we have to get into this spot editing discussion :) And it's usually someone who claims that his digital camera doesn't do any spot editing, so you shouldn't do it too :)
The fact is, ALL digital cameras do spot editing. If they don't, then they get really bad sharpening halos. For example: i coudln't use Fred Miranda's Custom Sharpen Pro action beacuse it is spot editing (it sharpens by using spot editing). However, i can take a photo and set sharpening high and get similar results, even though the camera does exactly the same thing (but it's just not tunable like a photoshop action).
But do i care about rules on DPC? :) nope.. the rules has never affected my prints anyway. Besides, I usually don't remove unwanted elements -- i'd consider that a failure on hte photographer part, but that's just me :) I do dodge and burn with masks, etc. (especially a digital graduated neutral density filter, acutally that's what i mostly do) for my own stuff. This for example, Leaves at Sol Duc Falls has been burned on the edges (via a radial mask and "multiply" in photoshop).
|
|
